On March 13, 2026, Christian Fumuso secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a board certified Oral Surgeon before Judge Dufficy in Supreme Queens Court after a 2 week trial involving allegations of negligent extraction. The 52 year old plaintiff claimed that when he presented to the oral surgeon’s practice he did so due to concerns of symptomatic tooth #9 for potential removal, however, upon clinical and radiographic review, the defendant surgeon opined that the only tooth indicated for extraction was #12, not #9. While the plaintiff ultimately consented for removal of tooth #12, a subsequent treating provider was highly critical of the defendant oral surgeon and advised that #12 was not indicated for extraction and the plaintiff therefore required a permanent implant. Throughout the trial, both plaintiff and defendant produced expert witnesses in the field of restorative oral surgery. While the plaintiff’s expert opined that #12 was not indicated for extraction based upon his review of the preoperative panoramic study and plaintiff’s alleged benign complaints, the defense expert (along with the defendant surgeon himself) both opined that indications existed for extraction via non-restorable carious presentation, including: infection, necrotic pulp, pain on palpation, and a broken crown without enough enamel for restoration. After 2 weeks and 6 witnesses, the jury deliberated for less than 1 hour and delivered a defense verdict for the oral surgeon.
